First, let me thank Chairman Smith for the opportunity to provide a written statement in support of the Stop Online Piracy Act and on the critical issue of combating illegal activity on the Internet. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Watt, as well as the other bi-partisan co-sponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) for all of your efforts in addressing this important issue. This bill is the result of previous hearings, and months of meetings and discussions with all interested parties. I know that this Committee took into consideration the concerns of all parties during this process, and I applaud your efforts. Go Daddy looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee to fine-tune this critically important piece of legislation in the coming weeks.

Go Daddy devotes considerable time and resources to working to preserve the integrity and safety of the Internet by quickly closing down websites and domain names engaged in illegal activities. We not only work with federal, state, and local law enforcement, but also strive to have the most robust notice and take-down practices in the industry. A vast number of our customers earn their livelihood from the successful businesses they have been able to establish and grow online, and their ability to continue to do so is of paramount importance to us.

Go Daddy is committed to doing everything it can to ensure that the Internet is a safe and trustworthy way to communicate and conduct business. We are grateful that this Committee agrees that it’s time for increased enforcement action because U.S. businesses are hurting, and those of us in the Internet ecosystem are in a unique position to help.

It is ironic that some companies that initially opposed the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are now saying that it is working just fine, and that its notice and takedown procedures are sufficient to protect the rights of intellectual property holders. Although we believe that the DMCA works well in some contexts, its remedies are limited in that it does not include mechanisms for addressing trademark infringement, or for bringing enforcement actions against illegal foreign-based sites. It seems to me to be inherently obvious that we need new legislation to combat the problem at hand. The solutions outlined in SOPA clearly present a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. We can and should all work together in the coming weeks to address any remaining issues that might exist. And then this Congress should move swiftly for its passage.

Background on Go Daddy

Go Daddy currently has over 50 million domain names under management, and is the number one domain name registrar in the world. We are also the largest worldwide mass-market hosting provider – currently providing hosting services for millions of websites. Our 50+ additional products and services, including cloud-based services, website security (SSL certificates), website development, and online business tools, are all focused toward helping our customers establish a trusted presence on the Internet. We employ nearly 4,000 Americans – mostly in Arizona, Iowa, and Colorado, and we’re expanding. All this to say that we have serious equities at play here, and the risks are just as real for us as they are for others. We have legitimate businesses, American jobs, and loyal customers at stake. But, we’re still standing up and shouting from the rooftops that this is a problem that needs to be addressed by a comprehensive and thoughtful solution.

Our Enforcement Efforts

Go Daddy has made it a high priority to use its position as the world’s largest registrar and hosting provider to make the Internet a better and safer place. As such, we have a large 24/7.

Abuse Department whose mission is to preserve the integrity and safety of Go Daddy’s network by investigating and shutting down websites and domain names engaged in illegal activities. We work with law enforcement agencies at all levels and routinely assist in a wide variety of criminal and civil investigations. We are also quick to respond to public complaints of spam, phishing, pharming, and online fraud, and work closely with numerous anti-fraud and security groups. We also continue to lead the charge to stop the proliferation of rogue online pharmacies and websites selling counterfeit medications. In 2010 alone we worked with the Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to investigate and take down over 36,000 such websites. We founded and co-chair the Board of Directors of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, an alliance of private industry actors working together to eviscerate the online sale of counterfeit and otherwise illegal prescription drugs. We are responsive to copyright and trademarks holders alike – regardless of a clear mandate to do so. We take each instance of illegal activity very seriously and devote high priority to ensuring that websites containing any kind of illegal content are removed from our network. We are on pace to address over a million complaints of illegal content in 2011, and a non-trivial number of those complaints have or will result in a domain name redirection and/or a website suspension. We do this in support of American businesses and U.S consumers, and because it’s the right thing to do.

Our Support for SOPA

Go Daddy has a long history of supporting federal legislation directed toward combating illegal conduct on the Internet. For example, our company strongly supported the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, the Protect Our Children Act of 2008, and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP). Go Daddy has always supported both government and private industry efforts to identify and disable all types of illegal activity on the Internet. It is for these reasons that I’m still struggling with why some Internet companies oppose PROTECT IP and SOPA. There is no question that we need these added tools to counteract illegal foreign sites that are falling outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement. And there is clearly more that we could all be doing to adequately address the problems that exist.

This Debate is about Jobs and the Rule of Law in the United States

As much as some would like to paint a bleak picture, this debate is not about Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley. This debate is about preserving, protecting, and creating American jobs, and protecting American consumers from the dangers that they face on-line. Americans should have ready access to purchase legitimate American products. But, this debate is also about how the Internet ecosystem can work together to make the Internet a safer place, while still allowing for job growth in multiple sectors.

The statistics speak for themselves. Whether we’re talking about copyright or trademark, software or American-made apparel, U.S. businesses are getting robbed and U.S. consumers are getting duped. You can still search for “drugs without a prescription” and yield natural search results for scores of illegal on-line pharmacies. We still see legitimate ads being placed on illegal sites dedicated to offering infringing movies or music. And thousands of sites still offer counterfeit products, many of which affect the health and safety of consumers. These sites are easy to locate, and you can still use your credit card to obtain these products. This problem is not going to just go away on its own.

There are currently believed to be between 60,000 – 90,000 illegal online drug sellers in operation and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that well over 90% of all online pharmacies operate unlawfully. There are numerous incidents of U.S. citizens becoming sick or dying after purchasing prescription medication on-line. The U.S. military has unintentionally procured counterfeit products that could easily have put our troops in grave danger had they gone undetected. But the debate in recent weeks has not been about these statistics, the impact on U.S. businesses, or the dangers to American consumers or our troops. It’s been about who could be found liable and who has to do the work to shut these sites down.

We won’t get very far by resorting to the pointing of fingers.

Filtering

When the PROTECT IP Act was introduced, a number of tech engineers marched to the Hill and exclaimed that Senator Leahy was about to break their Internet. The theory was that allowing the Attorney General to seek a court order compelling an ISP to filter so that infringing sites’ URLs would not resolve, would force people to use alternative DNS. And by using alternative DNS, the users would subject themselves to malware and perhaps worse. This would wreak havoc on the DNS system and jeopardize DNSSEC. But, it’s hard to imagine that the limited times per year that the Attorney General seeks this remedy for a site dedicated to infringement will result in a mass exodus away from DNS as we know it. I have to believe that the average person doesn’t want to commit a crime. The people who seek to use alternative DNS to do so may just get what’s coming to them. I don’t wish malware on anyone, but we all know that criminals will always find a way.

The House bill also provides that if other methods are employed to disable access, ISPs won’t be required to filter at all. If they don’t have the technological capability to filter, and it would be an economic burden to add such capability, then they don’t have to take action. So, it does not seem to me that this legislation will cause a mass exodus away from the current DNS system.

I told this Committee when I last testified on this issue that filtering would not be as effective in fighting infringement as blocking at the Registrar level, and it won’t. But, it’s not going to break the Internet.

First Amendment Claims
The opposition has also argued that this bill amounts to censorship and that it will undermine our ability to oppose censorship by oppressive nations. This bill cannot reasonably be equated with censorship. This bill promotes action pursuant to preexisting criminal and civil laws. Not only is there no First Amendment concern, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye to criminal conduct because other countries may take oppressive steps in response is an affront to the very fabric of this nation – that we abide by a set rule of laws, regardless of what actions other countries choose to take or not take. Noted First Amendment expert, Floyd Abrams, testified before the House Judiciary Committee with me last time, and recently reiterated in a letter to this Committee, that nothing in the legislation would impose a prior restraint on free speech. I vote for upholding our rule of law over doing nothing because we are scared of reprisal from oppressive or undemocratic nations.

Definition of Infringing Sites/ Litigation Risk

Some have gone so far as to argue that rights-holders will be able to sue if there is one page of infringing material amidst “millions” of legitimate pages. This assertion runs contrary to the intent of Congress, the plain language of both the Senate and House bills, and is not a fair reading of either piece of legislation. The Senate’s standard for action is a site “dedicated” to infringement. SOPA’s standard is similar. It is unfathomable to me how one page amidst a million could possibly qualify under any such standard. It is not at all clear to me that this section should trouble Internet companies. I don’t believe that YouTube is going to be in danger of being starved of revenue because of one infringing page on their site. If they are afraid of that action, and agree that the page is illegal, then by all means – take the page down and be done with it.

Room for Improvement

I’m finding that most of the concerns on the substance out there are unfounded. The notion that the solutions that have been put forth will break the Internet, or that certain legal businesses will go off-line because of new mandates is utterly unconvincing to me. SOPA goes a long way toward fixing the existing problems. But, like any piece of legislation, there is always room for some improvement. Most importantly, we need to make certain that we are not putting at risk the legitimate social networking sites, search engines, on-line retailers, and cloud computing services that host or direct to the content of others. And the “no duty to monitor” provisions should apply to the whole Internet ecosystem. Legitimate U.S. businesses should not have to “police the Internet.” We need to make sure that there is an adequate appeals mechanism built in, and we should consider allowing punitive damages for frivolous claims. But these are relatively easy fixes or clarifications and many of them could be accomplished quite easily if we were all collaborating.

Closing

The purpose of this legislation is to target foreign sites that are stealing U.S. property. No one is arguing that the purpose is invalid or unjust. If the mechanisms by which we get there need to be tweaked, then let’s have that discussion. Let’s stop with the hyperbole and get down to the brass tacks. We need to find a way to preserve American ingenuity. Starting from a place of common ground will allow us to have the conversation about how best to achieve those goals. SOPA is a needed tool to get the ball moving. As President Clinton has said, there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what’s right about America. So, let’s get to it – together.

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which owns around 80K domain names and whose retail site is at MostWantedDomains.com. Michael is also a Director of RightoftheDot.com which is a consultant in the new gTLD space and a broker of super premium domains. Michael Is also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest at #Internetofficial

Comments

Mike – I’ve been working on an analysis of the bill from a domain industry perspective.

While its trademark provisions are aimed at wesbites that engage in the sale of counterfeit goods, I believe that SOPA as introduced presents a very serious threat to the entire domain industry.
My conclusion is that almost any registrar, parking company, DN broker or auction provider, or other entity that deals with domains could be subject to termination of its payment and ad services based on allegations of a single trademark owner that it is dealing in domains that bear “counterfeit marks”.

The way the bill works is that any trademark owner can file a notice with the payment and ad providers of a US or foreign website making the allegation — they must “voluntarily” take that action expeditiously, and in any event within five days of providing the website operator with notice of the allegations. So the website operator has at most five days to retain counsel and file a counter-notice with a US court (and a foreign website doing so thereby agrees to US jurisdiction), so in all likelihood it will have its income shut off during the time it is fighting the allegations. Note that a judge gets involved to look at questions of fact and law only if that counter-notice is filed, so the initial service termination is stricyly a private matter sanctioned by a law that provides immunity to service providers who do so (and levies potential sanctions if they turn services back on and stand by their customer), and that sets such a low standard for those making allegations that they would hardly ever be subject to liability for false or exagerated claims.

In short, I think it’s a very dangerous bill for the entire domain industry as introduced.

Hi Philip,
It might be better with an example of what I think you are saying.

Hypothetically – my CheapBoots.com delivers sponsored results from Google and when the consumer clicks on the 4th advertiser (ChinaKnockoffBoots.com) , he is taken to a website that claims they sell licensed UGG boots – when, in fact, they are selling knockoff boots manufacturered in a sweatshop in China.

You know what, @ Michael? I supplied a screenshot showing Godaddy auction’s sale of paylpal.com as a friendly gesture, to give him ammo.

That’s the beauty of the web and your forum, where little people can mingle with the big people, and sometimes information can be passed that is useful.

Godaddy bought the site, Nodaddy.com and took it down. Must have paid a pretty penny. But nodaddy was #5 page 1 of Google, so Godaddy hates bad pr, and bought it. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence showing godaddy shuts down legitimate business and it does whatever it wants.

So take it for what it’s worth: godaddy is talking big because godaddy itself is a huge offender, to get in good with the lawmakers, without regard to consideration of due process, the way it has always acted.

Why not supply a Paypal link for the ICA legal bills for the little people who want to contribute, but are not able to be a member at this time? Thanx.

@Louise – rather than going after Go Daddy I am working with a broad colaition of technology, fair use, free speech and cybersecurity groups that are opposing this and a related Senate bill as being way overbroad and causing all kinds of collateral damage to the Internet. Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other major Internet companies just sent a letter to Congress this morning in opposition to the bill. That work includes taking on the claims of Go Daddy and other bill supporters.

Indeed, my inquiry into whether domain industry players could be taken down under SOPA was sparked by a Go Daddy Op-Ed favoring the bill, which in turn sparked a Techdirt post showing that when they tried to register rolex.com at Go Daddy it (surprise!) wasn’t available — and Go Daddy suggested registration of such substitutes as ebayrolex.com and rolexyahoo.com . It’s my belief that Go Daddy itself could face liability under SOPA for “offering goods and services in a manner that engages in, enable, or facilitates…the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark”. This “counterfeit mark” concept has not previously been applied to domaains and domain-relarted services, but I believe that SOPA opens that dangerous door.

It’s my understanding that the ICA website provides a link for donations — if you have any problem finding or using that, let me or Michael know.

And, @Brian, depending on the overall makeup of your wesbite you could face ad and payment termination for facilitating trademark infringement trigered by an Ugg allegation. Indeed, the overall thrust of the bill is to impose secondary liability on Internet intermnediares way beyond what current law requires. And, as I noted, if you think the charges are bogus you have the right the contest them in court — after your income has been shut off!

Techdirt post showing that when they tried to register rolex.com at Go Daddy it (surprise!) wasn’t available — and Go Daddy suggested registration of such substitutes as ebayrolex.com and rolexyahoo.com . It’s my belief that Go Daddy itself could face liability under SOPA for “offering goods and services in a manner that engages in, enable, or facilitates…the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark”.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It’s my understanding that the ICA website provides a link for donations — if you have any problem finding or using that, let me or Michael know.

but I don't see the Paypal button. It says, "ICA accepts donations online," but where is the Paypal button? Where is the email address? Nada. I'll email ICA, and send a link to the paypal page which describes the paypal button. Who knows? Little sums can add up!

It’s my belief that Go Daddy itself could face liability under SOPA for “offering goods and services in a manner that engages in, enable, or facilitates…the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark”.

Okay, the ICA site says it accepts online payments, but I didn’t see a Donate button, so I sent the email with Paypal page about donate . . . The ICA could create an ad domain bloggers could display on the right hand column of their blogs, to Donate to the ICA. It’s obviously a close topic to MHB, and if you don’t discriminate about tiny donations, I would be happy to support the industry advocacy.

Sorry if anything I say comes across disrespectful or unappreciative, @ MHB! I retract anything I said that may be construed disrespectful and ignorant! I’m sorry!

As I said the other day and no one responeded to, out of pure self interest no doubt, whats the difference between a trademark infringer and Sedo, GD etc etc etc selling TM names.

I will give GD more credit because of the sheer volume however Sedo has no excuse sending emails that contain 100 names with TM violations all over the place.

Will innocent people be caught in the cross fire – yes, will domainers have any right to moan – No.

1,000,000 civillians in the middle east have died in the last ten years because of BS decisions made by our governments, did you give a F*** then? No, but a bit of self interest and everyone gets on their high horse because their domains may be taken away and their $3 click throughs evaporate LOL what a world we live in.

I would hope that everyone would read all this information carefully…I trust you will…and then come to your own conclusions 😉

I said my peace for now 😉

Except…

This quote by “GD” is the biggest bunch of self serving & hidden agenda &%, I heard in a very long time…IMHO

Quote:

Closing

*The purpose of this legislation is to target foreign sites that are stealing U.S. property. *

*(nothing could be farther from ‘the real truth, this is just the ‘up-sell’)…IMHO)*

No one is arguing that the purpose is invalid or unjust. If the mechanisms by which we get there need to be tweaked, then let’s have that discussion. Let’s stop with the hyperbole and get down to the brass tacks. We need to find a way to preserve American ingenuity. Starting from a place of common ground will allow us to have the conversation about how best to achieve those goals. SOPA is a needed tool to get the ball moving. As President Clinton has said, there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what’s right about America. So, let’s get to it – together. * End quote *

___

“GD” sounds like “Nancy Pelosi” on Obamacare…we will find out what ALL is in the “bill’ AFTER we pass it…( sound a ‘bit’ familiar )

There is NO “discussion” AFTER the bill is passed!

___

Peace To All…Thank you Michael for allowing me to comment a ‘bit’ on this topic 😉

“The purpose of this legislation is to target foreign sites that are stealing U.S. property. ”

“GD”

Seems to fail to mention the ‘small’ fact that “ICE” & “FBI” & Homeland Security…Over the past 6-10 months have ALREADY taken down & seized dozens, if not hundreds of domain name’s & their websites…in “Foreign Countries”…without this bill even being passed.

Some ‘illegal sites’? ~ but some may not even come close to be considered ‘Illegal’

They have taken them down in: Canada ~ UK ~ Spain (just to name 3 off the top of my head)

So, saying the main “Purpose” of this bill is to: To target foreign sites that are stealing U.S. property. ”

Seems a bit ‘odd’… when they have been taking down and seizing domain names ‘outside’ the US for months.

“Following legal action by the Hollywood studios, the UK’s High Court ordered the country’s leading ISP to block subscriber access to Usenet indexing site Newzbin2. As expected the group then used the decision to have a UK webhost shut down a similar site, NZBsRus.

Although the site went offline for a few days, it’s now back, hardened and more determined than ever.

***But are comebacks like this likely to become a thing of the past if SOPA passes?”***

Sorry mate, you think our hands are clean in Somalia? What about Syria?

“What does this have to do…” You know what it is, people only get upset about things that impact on them. How many people on this board speak out against typos? Look at the reactions on your udrp cases, its still 50 50 even in nailed on cases.

People love to talk about the “domaining industry” the reason why increased regulation is needed is because self regulation has failed, do you agree?

BTW I am actually anti the bill however as I said when the S*** hits the fan people will only have themselves to blame.

A Look At The Testimony Given At Today’s SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings… With A Surprise From MasterCard
from the they-said-what-now? dept

Nice recap by Mike Masnick of TechDirt, including testimony from Mastercard rep, Linda Kirkpatrick AGAINST the bill:

Upon receiving a copy of an order or receiving notice from a rights holder, there are many circumstances that may arise which make a five-day window to complete the required actions not workable for a four-party payment network, such as MasterCard. For example, simply identifying the acquirer for an Internet site may take several days depending upon how long it takes for the alleged infringer to submit payments to its acquirer. The process becomes even more complex if the acquirer does not respond or asks for an extension because of local jurisdiction or other issues. Additionally, providing the merchant an opportunity to respond (in the case of a notice from a rights holder) also requires time. Moreover, confirming that a merchant may no longer accept payment from our brand for an infringing product may also take time. MasterCard is committed to begin this process within five days. However, MasterCard urges the Committee not to set an artificial deadline for the performance of a specific action as it may present impossible compliance challenges in some circumstances.

And also that the seven day response to injunctions is too short:

Under the bill, service of a copy of a court order by a rights holder on a payment network provider would trigger an obligation of the payment network provider to file with the court a certification of receipt not later than seven days after service. In MasterCard’s view, this obligation would impose material costs on payment network providers without a commensurate benefit. The process would require additional employee resourcing, the retention of qualified local counsel, and the payment of any applicable court fees. Moreover, the bill provides a rights holder the ability to seek the imposition of monetary sanctions on a payment network provider that does not comply with the court certification process, even though rights holders also have a remedy if a payment network provider does not take the required measures in response to a court order. The certification and sanctions approach is at odds with the cooperative approach that MasterCard and others have taken in their efforts to work together against online intellectual property piracy through the best practices and, in the case of MasterCard, our Anti-Piracy Policy.

Just another item…maybe of some importance, and have a ‘minor’ bearing on this issue also…WHICH NO ONE IN CONGRESS COULD EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN TO ANYONE!

Because, they have “no clue” what it is, and what effect’s it may have etc…

+++++++

“New flap over SOPA copyright bill: Anti-Web security?”

Just What is “DNSSEC”

Do not ask a Congress person or a MPA Lobbyist, because they do not know…But hey, lets vote away…and figure it out later, shall we?

“Ouote”

When the topic came up this morning, one by one, each witness — including a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America — said they weren’t qualified to discuss it or DNSSEC.

“If we’re going to do it we ought to at least talk about it,” said Lungren, who represents a congressional district near Sacramento, Calif. “Saying we’re not going to take a position or we’re not experts on this is upsetting.” (DNSSEC came up at one of Lungren’s Homeland Security hearings as recently as last month.) ”

“End Quote”

________

More?

________

“Ouote”

DNSSEC is intended to solve a problem that dates back to the Internet’s more innocent early days, when security problems weren’t the significant concern that they are today. By allowing Web sites to digitally sign their domain name entries, impersonating bank or credit card companies becomes more difficult.

That technique is designed to prevent malware from infecting computers and directing them to rogue sites, which would mean typing in bankofamerica.com would point you to a fake Web site without your knowledge. (Here’s the FBI’s description of how malware named DNSChanger infected approximately four million computers.)

*_____________________________________________________
For months, if not longer, technologists have been warning that SOPA and its Senate predecessor called the Protect IP Act are incompatible with DNSSEC.
_____________________________________________________*

An analysis (PDF) prepared by five Internet researchers this spring lists the problems with that approach. Among them: it’s “incompatible” with DNSSEC, innocent Web sites will be swept in as “collateral damage,” and the blacklist can be bypassed by using the numeric Internet address of a Web site. The address for CNET.com, for instance, is currently 64.30.224.118.

They say: “A legal mandate to operate DNS servers in a manner inconsistent with end-to-end DNSSEC would therefore interfere with the rollout of this critical security technology and stifle this emerging platform for innovation.”

The paper was authored by Steve Crocker, a longtime member of the Internet Engineering Task Force; David Dagon, a post-doctoral researcher at Georgia Institute of Technology; security researcher Dan Kaminsky; Verisign chief security officer Danny McPherson; and Paul Vixie, chairman of the Internet Systems Consortium and principal author of popular versions of the BIND DNS server software.

Andrew Lee, the chief executive of the ESET security firm’s North American operations, wrote a letter to Congress yesterday urging them to reject SOPA and its Senate cousin: “End Quote”

Greedy corps like Godaddy can’t see DNSSEC is to their long-term benefit. Sure, it will shake up the internet and dampen profits temporarily. Shaking out the malware distributs and copyright infringers will mean a leveling off of profits from those kind, like the 58 some odd people who bid on Paylpal.com at Godaddy auction, view link, above. But it will attract honest participants, and will foster a period of economic growth and recovery as honest businesses climb on board and more consumers will safe to play.

Because

DNSSEC just means, when you visit a website like Bank of America, it really is Bank of America.

When you open an email from Paypal, it really is Paypal, and not a phishing email.

It will improve business conditions, but Godaddy stands to lose profit temporarily. That is why GD said, as quoted above: “by using alternative DNS, the users would subject themselves to malware and perhaps worse.” Not exactly PR for DNSSEC. Malarchy. Like it’s such a delicate thing. Every DNS that isn’t DNSSEC, IS alternative DNS!

Can we please just get somebody to head ICANN who has a masters in computer systems, please? Not someone with a business agenda. Someone with knowledge of the nuts and bolts.

Just another part…and not a small one either…I going to post a blog post, to bring this around to most ‘domainers’ front door’ a bit more….which most I do not think are quite grasping…totally, what could happen if this bill is passed.

I may be wrong, but I am throwing it out into the world anyway 😉

I hope to get done tomorrow. (hope it make’s some sort sense other than just to me…that’s always nice) 😉

Remember, they are ‘selling’ this as a ‘anti piracy act’…

(reality) “Payola” to Hollywood for their continue support of the current admin in 2012….payback f0r 2008.

And the “Republicans”… they just know what they have been told by ‘lobbyist’

They like “Hollywood Pals” also.

Payment Processors seem very high on your list of what is important about this bill…and I agree it is very important. I have tried to ‘highlight a few others also.

“A little-noticed portion of a controversial House of Representatives copyright bill goes further than an earlier version and could require Internet providers to monitor customers’ traffic and block the addresses of Web sites suspected of copyright infringement.”

European Parliament Warns Of Global Dangers Of US Domain Revocation Proposals
Time:
17 Nov 2011 – 14
Responding to an intervention by EDRi (video, speech (PDF) at a hearing recently on attacks against computer systems, the European Parliament today adopted, by a large majority, a resolution on the upcoming EU/US summit stressing “the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names.”
In recent years, the United States has been increasingly using the fact that much of the Internet’s infrastructure and key businesses are under US jurisdiction in order to impose sanctions on companies and individuals outside its jurisdiction. This started two years ago when the domain names of a Spanish company owned by a British businessman were removed by a US-based registrar. The company was never accused of breaking Spanish law. More recently, the .org domain name of the Spanish website RojaDirecta was revoked by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement , having previously been found innocent of copyright infringement by Spanish courts.
This situation is now turning critical, with legislative proposals such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act claiming worldwide jurisdiction for domain names and IP addresses. The definitions in SOPA are so broad that, ultimately, it could be interpreted in a way that would mean that no online resource in the global Internet would be outside US jurisdiction.
The resolution will now be forwarded by the President of the Parliament to the to the European Council, the European Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the US Congress, the co-chairs of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue and the co-chairs and secretariat of the Transatlantic Economic Council.
On 15 November, over 60 civil and human rights organizations wrote a letter to Congress (co-signed by EDRi, Access, the Association for Progressive Communications, Reporters Without Borders, Center for Technology and Society at FGV in Brazi and many more) urging the rejection of SOPA. The letter argues that the Act “is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.”

No worries mate ! We all see what big business is doing. Buying new laws to rule the USA by owning congress. Every country that raises up now for a free democracy uses the internet and cell phones to organize there efforts against dictatorship.

The USA government is in fear of free speech and the internet because their afraid of its citizens throwing out the do nothing congress. Big business wants to monopolize and destroy there competition.

Its a power grab plain and simple…. Godaddy wants in with the snakes…..

Even if some people might not admit it but Google has become our most important tool and most provider of everything. Using Chrome with it offers very good security. Not if you are an idiot and download and execute trash despite the warnings.
Why reply on your ISP DNS servers then?
I had the utmost surprise when my own website could not be found when using a major UK ISP.
So now I have manually set my DNS to Google.

The passing of this act as it stands swings the pendulum too far the other way. While I can appreciate the need to protect American ingenuity and other somesuch, providing such broad power to regulate websites with such a low standard of proof establishes a system where denouncement is effectively judgment rendered.

I dont understand godaddy’s all american stand. They are saying and feeling very proud at the same time that they employ only americans. If they want to employ only americans why they are serving international customers? They must only serve companies opened by red indian americans then I will see if they can still employ 4000 employees and how long they will survive before collapsing into debris and I will walk on their grave.

I’m so glad I’m not working at GoDaddy anymore, horrible workplace that uses shitty prizes and contests and insane, pushy metrics that force you to upsell or lose your job. I’d have quit over this if I hadn’t already…

Just a few words – cattle excrement! From a UK perspective, I have never seen such cozying up and crawling to your politicians in all my life. Striking such a “holier-than-thou” pose is laughable. No wonder folk are moving their business away – in droves it would seem. I would too!

90,000 online pharmacies … eh ? That takes a lot of servers and people behind the servers to run, let alone pack and post these ‘fake’ products, theres more jobs gonna be lost in pharmaceuticals than other industries, this mans argument and the statistics quoted here are a sham.